In message <CAC4yj2X+hS4rjyCHiLagk9AQVWa3ZFYvs_0O2gE12YVXO2genA at mail.gmail.com>
Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>I know neither of these directly answer your question.
Well, in a word, no. but I appreciate your response as it does shed a
bit more light on this overall topic.
Of course, I have no real idea what the exact meaning of this phrase is:
"provided that the applicant has a real and substantial connection with the
ARIN region". But that's OK, because I don't imagine that anybody else
has either, and I intuit that this exact squishy phraseology was made a
part of ARIN-2015-5 rather deliberately, to insure general acceptance of
the larger proposal.
To return to my original point however, I would like to know if there
is, or would be, general hostility to the notion of ARIN asking for
concrete documentation of the identities of the beneficial owners (say,
for 25% ownership or above) of non-publicly-traded corporate entities
to which ARIN assigns number resources.
As should be evident, in the current era, and given the various shenanigans,
political and otherwise, that have dogged the Internet generally in recent
years, I personally am of the opinion that additional transparency is not
only warranted but necessary, even if for no other reason than to fully
comply with both the letter and the spirit of existing law and various
international sanction regimes.